Boone v. Witherspoon

Plaintiff
proceeds pro se from his incarceration in Shawnee
Correctional Center on claims for deliberate indifference to
his type 2 diabetes and neuropathy during the last part of
his incarceration in Danville Correctional Center before his
transfer to Shawnee.

The
parties have filed cross summary judgment motions. While
Plaintiff appears to have received good care for most of his
stay at Danville and a jury certainly could find for
Defendants, the Court cannot rule out an inference of
deliberate indifference regarding Plaintiff's neuropathy
or the unexplained halving of one of Plaintiff's diabetes
medicines for about four months. Summary judgment is denied.

Summary
Judgment Standard

"The
court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A movant may demonstrate the absence of a
material dispute through specific cites to admissible
evidence, or by showing that the nonmovant “cannot
produce admissible evidence to support the [material]
fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(B). If the movant clears this
hurdle, the nonmovant may not simply rest on his or her
allegations in the complaint, but instead must point to
admissible evidence in the record to show that a genuine
dispute exists. Id.; Harvey v. Town of
Merrillville, 649 F.3d 526, 529 (7th Cir. 2011).

At the
summary judgment stage, the evidence is viewed in the light
most favorable to the nonmovant, with material factual
disputes resolved in the nonmovant's favor. Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A
genuine dispute of material fact exists when a reasonable
juror could find for the nonmovant. Id.

Facts

Plaintiff
was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes some time before 2005.
Defendant Dr. Talbot, a doctor working at Danville
Correctional Center, treated Plaintiff starting in 2010 until
Plaintiff transferred from Danville to Shawnee Correctional
Center in August 2013. Over these years, Dr. Talbot
prescribed diabetes medications, lifestyle instruction, lab
tests, daily checks of Plaintiff's blood sugar levels,
and a diabetic meal tray. Dr. Talbot also offered to
prescribe insulin to Plaintiff, but Plaintiff preferred to
control his diabetes through oral medication and lifestyle
changes. Plaintiff's A1C level, a blood test that tracks
average blood sugar levels, varied from 6.3 to 8.1 from 2005
to 2009. An A1C of 7 or less is generally considered to
indicate well controlled diabetes, though many factors are
taken into account in determining whether a particular
patient's diabetes is well controlled.

Plaintiff
was prescribed two diabetes medicines during his
incarceration in Danville-Glipizide and Metformin. The
dosages of these medicines were revised from time to time
based upon Dr. Talbot's determination of how well
Plaintiff's diabetes was controlled. The medical
treatment Plaintiff challenges began in the Fall of 2012
through August 22, 2013, when Plaintiff was transferred from
Danville to Shawnee.

In
August 2012, Plaintiff was taking 15 mg of Glipizide, twice
per day, and 1000 mg Metformin, twice per day.
Plaintiff's A1C that month was 7.6. By November
Plaintiff's A1C had increased to 7.8. On December 4,
2012, Dr. Talbot talked to Plaintiff about trying insulin,
but Plaintiff preferred to stay with the oral
medicine/lifestyle modification approach. Dr. Talbot reduced
the Metformin to 850 mg and planned to follow up with
Plaintiff in six weeks.

On
December 13, 2012, Plaintiff saw Defendant Nurse Practitioner
Witherspoon in the diabetes clinic. Defendant Witherspoon
continued Dr. Talbot's Metformin prescription but reduced
Plaintiff's Glipizide to 15 mg once a day rather than
twice a day. Defendant Witherspoon does not recall why she
halved the Glipizide prescription. She avers that “[i]t
is possible that I was under the impression that [Plaintiff]
was only receiving Glipizide 15 mg once a day, and simply did
not realize that he was receiving Glipizide twice a day. It
is also possible that I decreased the Plaintiff's
Glipizide. (Witherspoon Aff. ¶ 7.) Dr. Talbot did not
catch the decrease in his review of the records.

By
April 2013, Plaintiff's A1C had increased to 11.1. Dr.
Talbot does not believe that the 15 mg daily decrease in
Glipizide would account for the A1C raise, noting that
Plaintiff had gained weight and had purchased food from the
commissary that is contraindicated for diabetes. Dr. Talbot
restored Plaintiff's Glipizide prescription to 15 mg,
twice per day, and continued Plaintiff's other
prescriptions. By August 14, 2013, Plaintiff A1C had dropped
to 8.

In
November of 2012, Plaintiff began complaining of symptoms
consistent with foot neuropathy-a sharp and tingling foot
pain. According to Plaintiff, he continued to complain to
both Defendants about these increasing symptoms to no avail
until, on July 10, 2013, Defendant Witherspoon diagnosed
neuropathy and prescribed 300 mg of Neurontin, twice daily.
Plaintiff believed the dosage needed to be increased because
he felt no relief and his hand had started tingling. About a
month later, on August 9, 2013, Defendant Witherspoon ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.